Andrea Anastasio heads the research wing at HiLo Funds, Ltd., an investment advisory and money management firm. Andrea was recently informed by one of her junior analysts, Marcus Cambus, that the investment recommendation on HotPots food chain stock needed an immediate downgrade from hold to sell. This was based on talks with HotPots' management whom revealed that HotPots would be launching an ill-advised expansion plan soon (this information has been discussed in the financial newspapers, too). Andrea checked Marcus' analysis and agreed with the conclusions. Deciding to include this in her research newsletter, Andrea informed a few of the portfolio managers about the change. She did warn them that no action on the news should be taken before the newsletter was out for at least 4 days. However, Cotler, one of her subordinates and an AIMR member, inadvertently and prematurely sold off a large chunk of the holdings of Hotpots stock in one of his larger accounts. A month-end review of accounts DID NOT catch the violation. Which of the following is/are true?
I. Andrea has not violated any AIMR code but Cotler has violated Standard III (B) - Duty to Employer.
II. Andrea has violated Standard III (E) - Responsibilities of Supervisors.
III. Cotler has violated Standard V (A) - Prohibition against Use of Non-Public Information.
IV. Cotler has violated Standard IV (B.3) - Fair Dealing.
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.Explanation
Since the information has been discussed in the financial newspapers, it certainly is not non-public information and no violation of Standard V (A) - Prohibition against Use of Non-Public Information has occurred. However, by treating one of his larger accounts differently, Cotler has violated Standard IV (B.3) - Fair
Dealing which requires him to treat all of his clients fairly, without bias. By ignoring Andrea's admonitions and committing these violations, he has potentially harmed his employer (this is in breach of Standard II (B) - Professional Misconduct, not Standard III (B) - Duty to Employer, which is quite specific about its scope of activities covered). Andrea, on the other hand, has been negligent in not carrying out her supervisory duties. She should have either not revealed the change in investment recommendation to her employees or if she deemed it necessary to do so, should have takenappropriate steps to ensure that violations of her instructions did not occur. Simple verbal or even written warnings are not good enough to absolve her of violating Standard III (E) - Responsibilities of Supervisors.
Further, the fact that a month- end review of accounts did not detect Cotler's irresponsible actions implies that stricter or more efficient monitoring is required of
Andrea.